Posts

Willie Brown
v. Kim Nagelhout, 37 Fla. L. Weekly S225a, Case No. SC10-868,
filed March 15, 2012. This was a personal injury suit in which the Florida
Supreme Court reversed 4th DCA’s application of the judicially-created “joint
residency rule,” which allows venue in any county of residence for more than
one defendant resides in those cases where all defendants do not reside in a
common county, and receded from Enfinger
v. Baxley, 96 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1957), in favor of section 47.021,
Florida Statutes, which allows the plaintiff to chose venue in such cases. (from RPPTL Subcommittee). Trenton H. CotneyFlorida Bar Certified Construction LawyerTrent Cotney, P.A.1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222Tampa, FL 33602(813) 579-3278www.trentcotney.com

The Cool Guys,
LLC v. Jomar Properties and Accredited Surety,
37 Fla. L. Weekly D574a, Case No. 4D10-4206, filed March 7, 2012. Affirmed the
trial court’s summary judgment in favor of owner and surety on a transfer bond
that was posted during the pendency of the lien foreclosure, and held that s.
713.24(4), as amended in 2005, precluded the subcontractor from bringing a
claim on the transfer bond more than two (2) years after the lien was
transferred to bond by requiring that such a claim must be filed within one (1)
year after the transfer bond was posted. Note: This opinion is contrary to American Fire v. Davis Water, 358
So. 2d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), aff’d, 377 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1979),
but that case was decided prior to the statutory amendment. (from RPPTL subcommittee). Trenton H. CotneyFlorida Bar Certified Construction LawyerTrent Cotney, P.A.1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222Tampa, FL 33602(813) 579-3278www.trentcotney.com

Ricardo O.
Wolfe, II and H. Michelle Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 37
Fla. L. Weekly D505a, Case No. 2D10-3670, filed February 29, 2012. Contractor
sought foreclosure of construction lien for $91,261.65, which was reduced to
an award of only $9,074.06 after offsets for owners’ counterclaim for defective
workmanship, after contractor had rejected a joint settlement offer of $25,000
made by owners pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2006), and Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3). After citing concerns and observations by other courts
that this statute and rule have not seemed to have their desired affect of
reducing litigation, the court held that the trial court’s denial of fees to
the owners was error, and reversed and remanded on this issue. (from RPPTL Subcommittee). Trenton H. CotneyFlorida Bar Certified Construction LawyerTrent Cotney, P.A.1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222Tampa, FL 33602(813) 579-3278www.trentcotney.com

Great American JWR
Construction Services and Gulf Reflections Condominium Association,
Case No. 10-61423-CV-Huck/Branstra, U. S. District Court, Southern District of
Florida, Order entered on April 9, 2011. Summary Judgment granted in favor of
contractor and owner and against surety on the sole issue of the duty to defend
an underlying suit in Lee County Circuit Court (Case No. 10-CA-000371) for
damages caused by the installation of Chinese drywall. Applying New York law as
required by the policy, the exclusion for “Faulty work/own work” was rejected
because the drywall installation itself was not alleged to be defective, and
the exclusion for “Products Liability” was also rejected because the
construction was a “service” and not a “product,” and because the contractor
did not “handle” the drywall. Surety was also ordered to reimburse for defense
costs incurred to date, but further proceedings in this case was stayed pending
outcome of the underlying suit. (from RPPTL Subcommittee). Tr…

Michael Scantland
v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., Case No. 8:09-CV-1985-T-17TBM, U. S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida, Tampa Division, Order entered on March 29,
2012. Partial Summary Judgment was entered in favor of defendant cable
installation company for customers of Bright House Networks in a collective
action under Fair Labor Standards Act brought by individual cable technicians
claiming to be “employees,” rather than “independent contractors,” based on
court’s analysis of installer contracts and an “economic realities” test of the
parties’ relationship, including various factors dealing with the nature and
degree of “control” over which the work was performed, the opportunity for
profit and loss, investment in materials and the presence of special skills. (from RPPTL subcommittee).

Many lien release forms contain language that not only releases any lien claim a contractor or supplier may have but any claim against the owner or upstream customer. Make sure to read lien releases carefully before signing.

713.08, Fla. Stat. provides that: (2) The
claim of lien may be prepared by the lienor or the lienor’s employee or
attorney and shall be signed and sworn to or affirmed by the lienor or the
lienor’s agent acquainted with the facts stated therein. A Notice to Owner company cannot prepare the claim of lien unless they have an attorney prepare it. To do so, would be the unlicensed practice of law.